Third, from the peril of ambiguity and uncertainty.
Third, from the peril of ambiguity and uncertainty.
§ 338. We prove our opinion: (III) From the peril of ambiguity and uncertainty. Whatever renders Holy Scripture ambiguous and uncertain should by no means be affirmed. Yet that hypothesis—that the vowel points are not as old as the consonants but that the rabbinic scholars added them after many centuries—renders Scripture doubtful and uncertain. Therefore that hypothesis is by no means to be affirmed. The major premise gleams with its own light, for if Scripture should “make us wise unto salvation” (2 Tim. 3:15), then it must be certain, clear, and perfect, and these are its qualities that we defend against the Papists with great zeal.
The minor premise is proved: (1) From a consideration of those words that allow varied pointing and also change their meaning according to the variety of their pointing. Thus if 
is pointed in this way, 
, it means “brothers”; but if it is pointed in a different way, 
, it denotes “harmful beasts.” If 
is pointed 
, it means “speaker”; if 
, it means “it was said”; if 
, it means “said”; if 
, it means “word”; if 
, it means “pestilence”; if 
, it means “having been led” and, by metalepsis, “sheepfold” or “pen.” Is there anything, however, that will make us sure which pointing and, thus, which meaning of the word we must accept if a word of this sort, with a capacity for a variety of pointings, occurs in the Scriptures?
(2) By bringing in the passages in which the Septuagint translators turned away from the Hebrew truth because of the absence of vowel points. For example, Gen. 15:11: 
, “and he drove them (namely, the birds) away,” the Septuagint translators rendered 
[“he sat down with them”]; they substituted other pointing and read it 
.
Genesis 47:31: “And Israel bowed himself over the head of the bed, 
,” the Septuagint rendered 
[“he bowed over the top of the staff”], and in this way it is also cited in Heb. 11:21. Therefore they read it as 
, “staff,” and on their own they added 
[“his”] to relate it to Joseph.
First Kings 10:19: 
, “and the head of the throne was round behind,” the Septuagint translators rendered as 
, “of calves.” Therefore they read it with the substitution of other vowel points as 
.
Psalm 88:10: “If the 
, the dead, rise up,” the Septuagint translators rendered as 
[“if the healers rise up”]. They read it as 
.
Psalm 91:6: 
, “from the pestilence”; the Septuagint translators: 
[“from the matter”]. They read it as 
.
Psalm 120:5: 
, “I lived in Meshech,” the Septuagint translated 
[“my sojourning was lengthened”]. They read it as 
.
Isaiah 5:17: 
, “rams,” the Septuagint rendered as 
, “the oppressed.” Therefore they read it as 
.
Isaiah 17:11: 
, “and desperate with grief,” the Septuagint translators rendered as 
[“and as a father of a man”]. Therefore they had read it as 
.
Hosea 3:1: 
, “beloved of a friend,” the Septuagint translated as 
[“a woman who loves evil”]. Thus they read it as 
”evil.” We could bring up more examples of this kind.
(3) From the twisting of Scripture into a false and heretical meaning, a twisting made possible (and, in fact, easy) by the substitution of other vowel points. Gen. 3:15: 
, “He (that is, the woman’s seed) will bruise the serpent’s head,” but remove the pointing and one can read it 
, “she,” that is, Mary, as the Papists want it.
In Exod. 17:14 and Deut. 15:19, God orders them to destroy the 
, “remembrance,” or mention of Amalek. If the natural points are removed and others substituted, one will be able to read it as 
, which means “a male.” By this reasoning Saul would not have sinned in sparing “the best of sheep and of the oxen” of Amalek (1 Sam. 15:9).
Rabbi Jonathan reads Ezek. 48:35 as 
, “the Lord is her name,” to be able to deny the divinity of the Messiah, though the vowel-pointed copies constantly read 
, “the Lord is there.” Therefore either one must concede that Scripture is uncertain and ambiguous, like wax, flexible in any direction, or one will say that the vowel points were always connected with the letters in the first edition of Scripture.
They make the exception: (1) “The entire wisdom of the Hebrews in the talmudic and rabbinic writings, of which there are many, were handed down without vowel points to be read and taught publicly in their schools without vowel points; and there is no one who would complain that all things there are uncertain.” We respond. [a] The talmudic books and Holy Scripture are not of the same nature. After all, we can be without the former without the loss of our salvation, and it matters little even if at times someone wanders from the true meaning because of an ambiguity of the words or the lack of vowel points. But God wants the codex of Scripture, on the other hand, to be as far as possible from every ambiguity and danger of erring. [b] The talmudic books were not written by the immediate inspiration of the Holy Spirit but had as their authors men who were subject to error. Therefore one cannot and should not pass judgment on the God-breathed Holy Scripture from those. [c] The talmudic and rabbinic books lack vowel points because of shorthand writing, so that it could be finished more quickly. This rationale, however, ceases in the case of the codex of the Bible. [d] It is quite clear that those who are trained in the Hebrew language can read it without the pointing; however, they cannot reach the proper and genuine meaning in certain places without the help of the points, as is evident from what has been said. [e] God wanted to give counsel not only to the learned and the well-trained but also to absolutely all people, even the more uninstructed, through the revelation of His Word and the promulgation of Scripture. But it cannot at all be denied that for them the points are necessary for reading. [f] Who will make us certain that those talmudic and rabbinic books lacked vowel points in their first writing?
They make the exception: (2) “That ambiguity does not stem from the absence of vowel points but from multiple meanings of words. Remedy is prepared for that if the antecedents are compared with the consequents, if a diligent comparison of its parts is established, and its aim is always considered.” We respond. [a] Although ambiguity at times does arise from the multiple meaning of some words, yet a far greater and more difficult one develops if the points are removed completely. [b] We readily admit that a comparison of the text is the most useful means that serves to remove that ambiguity. Nevertheless the matter itself bears witness that such a means is not sufficient, as is clear from the examples just adduced. [c] I am unable to pass judgment on a proposition unless I first rightly understand its parts, namely, its subject and predicate. But now, I cannot always judge from the context concerning the genuine meaning of the subject and predicate in the proposition. [d] The only edition of the Bible that the Septuagint translators had at hand when they produced their version appears to have been without vowel points. This makes it clear that one cannot learn the genuine meaning of any word solely from the context if the points are removed.